RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 397 398 399 400 401 [402] 403 404 405 406 407 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,09:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,07:47)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2014,06:33)
Again, you are the one with conclusions based on assertions rather than evidence and with not-so-sly references to trinities, chromosomal Adams and Eves, failed religion-based "theories", and "an eternal conscious loving 'spirit' ".

And you are another scientifically useless piece of shit.

Charming.  

Now demonstrate that my criticisms of your pile of rubbish are wrong.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,10:10   

[quote=GaryGaulin,Oct. 16 2014,07:08]    
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 15 2014,21:42)
...
It is just the expected outcome of the loss of credibility I often spoke about.
...

Happily for you Gary, you've lost no credibility at all.

One cannot lose something they never had.

Sadly, there was a time you had 20 years of your life ahead of you to spend doing something financially worthwhile and socially rewarding.

Instead, you wasted it on your incoherent, insignificant and ignored "theory" along with a worthless adolescent VB program.

You probably have a few years left...try to use them meaningfully.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,14:50   

Gary seems to be running low on Crackpot Fuel.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,17:12   

The computer models and theory are still scientifically sound and doing fine where people go for such things. But I already have more than enough religion talking Crackpots than I need, thank you.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,17:48   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 16 2014,08:41)
So attention whore can't stay away -- surprising no-one -- and finally admits his battle is a political one that has bugger all to do with science.

Surprising no-one.

I already won the science battle. That war officially ended with the first Intelligence Design Lab having been published at Planet Source Code. Other original models including grid and place cell navigational networks only helped make it a clear scientific victory. There is no other like it anywhere.

The only issue now is the academic politics from (anti)religious activists who want to turn science into a tribunal, where scientific theories are judged by whose politics it supports. I do not owe anything to the swell-heads who appointed themselves controllers of what is and what is not science. It's best they remain powerless whiners.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,17:57   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,17:48)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 16 2014,08:41)
So attention whore can't stay away -- surprising no-one -- and finally admits his battle is a political one that has bugger all to do with science.

Surprising no-one.

I already won the science battle. That war officially ended with the first Intelligence Design Lab having been published at Planet Source Code. Other original models including grid and place cell navigational networks only helped make it a clear scientific victory. There is no other like it anywhere.

The only issue now is the academic politics from (anti)religious activists who want to turn science into a tribunal, where scientific theories are judged by whose politics it supports. I do not owe anything to the swell-heads who appointed themselves controllers of what is and what is not science. It's best they remain powerless whiners.

But they aren't powerless, are they, Gary?  You always whine about how they are destroying you, wrecking your health, keeping you from success.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,19:49   

Quote
The computer models and theory are still scientifically sound and doing fine where people go for such things.


Where people go for important scientific discoveries is the leading scientific journals.

Your pile of rubbish is not a theory: it is not generally accepted or even provisionally thought to be interesting; you don't have any supporting evidence; you haven't proposed any ways to test it; it hasn't passed any tests; it isn't potentially falsifiable; you don't have any operational definitions; it doesn't explain anything; it isn't logically coherent.  

Your computer model isn't relevant to the assertions that you are making.


 
Quote
I already won the science battle. That war officially ended with the first Intelligence Design Lab having been published at Planet Source Code.
 Do you have weather in your reality or is it always warm and sunny there?

 
Quote
There is no other like it anywhere.
I was going to say that at least that much at least is true and thank goodness for that.  However, then I remembered that your work has been superseded by Edgar Postrado's more recent, much more expansive, and already published revision of intelligent design, which you still haven't addressed.  So your stuff is not only wrong and unsupported, it's also obsolete.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,21:50   

Gary said: "But I already have more than enough religion talking Crackpots than I need, thank you."

Yeah, you, the voices in your head, and your IDiotic ilk.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,22:33   

Gary said: "I already won the science battle. That war officially ended with the first Intelligence Design Lab having been published at Planet Source Code."

Gary, something I've noticed is that people like you, who latch onto and push such things as theocratic-IDiotic-pseudo-scientific agendas, apparently lack the ability to feel embarrassment. Even if your approach to pushing your agenda is different from how other IDiots approach it, you all have that apparent inability in common.

No matter how many times your (all IDiots) allegedly scientific assertions are refuted, no matter how many times it's shown that your agenda is religious and political, no matter how many times it's shown that you're dishonest about your agenda, and no matter how many times you say things that SHOULD embarrass you, you just dig your heels in and keep on spouting nonsense and dishonesty.

Please stop, and instead do something productive with your life. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for your wife.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,22:40   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 16 2014,22:33)
Gary, something I've noticed is that people like you, who latch onto and push such things as theocratic-IDiotic-pseudo-scientific agendas, apparently lack the ability to feel embarrassment.

What would most embarrass me is having gone along with the crowd that is now embarrassingly behind in modern science even the (born to be a mad-scientist) kids are now into these days:

http://ncse.com/blog....0052011

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,22:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,22:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 16 2014,22:33)
Gary, something I've noticed is that people like you, who latch onto and push such things as theocratic-IDiotic-pseudo-scientific agendas, apparently lack the ability to feel embarrassment.

What would most embarrass me is having gone along with the crowd that is now embarrassingly behind in modern science even the (born to be a mad-scientist) kids are now into these days:

http://ncse.com/blog.......0052011

On a scale of 0-100, how would you rate PSCs impact on science, Gary?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2014,23:42   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 16 2014,22:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,22:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 16 2014,22:33)
Gary, something I've noticed is that people like you, who latch onto and push such things as theocratic-IDiotic-pseudo-scientific agendas, apparently lack the ability to feel embarrassment.

What would most embarrass me is having gone along with the crowd that is now embarrassingly behind in modern science even the (born to be a mad-scientist) kids are now into these days:

http://ncse.com/blog.......0052011

On a scale of 0-100, how would you rate PSCs impact on science, Gary?

Considering that I publish Visual Basic computer models for learning the very basics of cognitive science the greatest impact factor possible is from being at Planet Source Code and when necessary directly email scientific leaders, discuss at the Kurzweil AI forum, etc..

I am not from an academic research lab that publishes papers in science journals. It is unfair, unrealistic and damaging to science to expect everyone to follow university science department procedures for publishing results, which to administrators shows whether they are actually working on something that makes the institution look good or are just goofing off on the job and need replacing.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,01:46   

The following comment was flagged at the NCSE forum and now that it is off the screen and in moderation it may soon enough never be seen again, so I'll post it in this forum too:

Quote
I would not say "how the brain figures out where you are" it's a larger problem of understanding the system that allows us to intuitively map and navigate from place to place according to what we want or need. In my work the Moser team made possible this model of value to the field of AI:

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....program

With compiled code exe to run on Windows, no install required:
http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Knowing where we are the result of a not yet understood navigational system. My model (Edvard knows about and reviewed the description of before I submitted the first model to Planet Source Code) represents my best guess for what is most simply happening in our brain.

And for what it's worth: Although I have had science teachers I liked, I hated public school and I have no science teacher story. My inspiration seems to have been when I was a toddler and learned how to cut power cords with scissors. The sparks and shocking invisible force that powered light bulbs fascinated me so much I was into electronics before I could read, by taking electronic junk home from a junk yard to take apart, including unwinding coils and capacitors to find out what is inside all the components even picture tubes. My scientific curiosity made me a hard child to raise and I was easily bored by classroom science. In middle school I wanted to learn electronics and cognitive related science, not memorize trivia that does not explain how things work. I can though thank the Fairview Public Library (with ARRL manuals) that was in walking distance from where I lived, and the librarians who did not mind my only wanting books from the adult science/electronic section, not the kid stuff I already saw anyway.

From my experience: Learning science at the usual public school pace is not how one gets ahead of what everyone else knows, it's how one gets left behind with the rest who only know that.

It's good to give due credit to science teachers who made science class exciting and worth attending, but born to be scientists are easily held back by an academic system that does not teach what students want to learn (and through that make sense of all the math and whatever that's needed). I'm most with those who would rather be home working on their latest science project, not stuck in a classroom with homework that only helps slow down progress on what they're probably learning the most from to begin with.

It's also important that a student be taught how to learn on their own, which my early public school teachers told me they were trying to accomplish, for me to be thankful to them for. And one of my most favorite elementary level science teachers let me know he wished the public school curriculum could meet my needs. I sensed they felt somewhat powerless to change things and like I would rather start incubating a few chicken eggs especially with a glass window we figure out how to put on it to observe development into a chick a farmer can have back after hatching for them. He too might find a lot more fun and educational than the classroom usual they were required to teach. In eiter case, their sensing my need for what the public schools are not able to provide made a lasting impression on me. Enough so that they are a science teacher I admire, for having letting me know early on that finding science class uninteresting and boring is in my case expected.

Science teachers do not make born to be scientists, their parents do, then they only hope wherever they send them to school works out and they don't maybe get rejected as unteachable and have to be home schooled like Thomas Edison's mom got stuck with but thankfully managed on her own. Galileo would have to thank monastery monks who would have had the (hard to find around) books he needed in their library and helped him figure them out, and later considering formal science teachers he had to be pompous jerks who are more concerned with keeping up appearances. Not getting along in an academic system others seem to be doing well in, is also relatively common among the most successful born to be scientists/engineers/inventors of them all. Science is not served by stereotypes that make it appear that the opposite must be true.


--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,02:01   

And the (works for now) link to the comment that is now in moderation is:
http://ncse.com/blog.......0052011

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,05:54   

Quote
My inspiration seems to have been when I was a toddler and learned how to cut power cords with scissors.

Oh, Icarus....

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,09:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,18:48)
...
I already won the science battle. That war officially ended with the first Intelligence Design Lab having been published at Planet Source Code. Other original models including grid and place cell navigational networks only helped make it a clear scientific victory. There is no other like it anywhere.
...

What on earth makes you think this?
NO ONE other than yourself, the set of voices in your head, thinks you have done or are doing science in any sense of the term.

Submission of source code to a code-sharing site such as PSC does not count as 'publication'  in any except the most liberally metaphorical or allegorical fashion.
There are no particular restrictions on submission to PSC.  The stated goal of the site is to provide sample code in a (small) variety of languages.  That you contributed something is entirely irrelevant to science and to the act of publication.

Your 'models' are, as already noted (repeatedly), irrelevant to your "theory" and vice versa.

So, you are claiming that submission of source code that has no relationship to your 'theory' to a site not dedicated or focused on science in any way, shape, or form, counts as a 'scientific victory'.
You are, quite literally, insane.

Let us consider the process of 'doing science'.  Publication is neither the first step nor the last.  It is considerably closer to the first step than the last, however.
You have not so much failed to take the requisite next step as you have refused to take the requisite next step -- engage with the criticisms and critiques raised against your 'publication' and either defend or modify your notions.

You fail right out of the gate by having no evidence and no foundations in reality.  
You fail at the next step by not having actually managed to publish anything.  No, PSC doesn't count, or does your obsessively repeated linking to your web-hosted ever-changing document.
You fail at the next step, which is engagement with criticism and critique.
You fail at the parallel step where you convince others of the general truth and utility of core elements of your 'theory'.  This is hardly a surprise given that your 'theory' lacks sufficient coherence or clarity to claim to have 'core elements'.
No evidence, no data, no publication, no support, no agreement, no engagement with critics on the merits.
No science, not even a science fail, because you are not doing science.

You fail at, quite literally, everything you try.

Same as it ever was.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,10:19   

So, from on a scale of 0-100?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,11:20   

Quote
the greatest impact factor possible is from being at Planet Source Code

Until he specifies otherwise (and ignoring his apparent ignorance of the technical definition of "impact factor"), that statement would seem to imply that he rates PSC's importance as 100.

If we calculate the Impact Factor for PSC based on citations of Gary's work alone, it would have an Impact Factor of 0.00

Once again, Gary provides giggles.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,11:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,23:46)
It's also important that a student be taught how to learn on their own, which my early public school teachers told me they were trying to accomplish, for me to be thankful to them for. And one of my most favorite elementary level science teachers let me know he wished the public school curriculum could meet my needs. I sensed they felt somewhat powerless to change things and like I would rather start incubating a few chicken eggs especially with a glass window we figure out how to put on it to observe development into a chick a farmer can have back after hatching for them. He too might find a lot more fun and educational than the classroom usual they were required to teach. In eiter case, their sensing my need for what the public schools are not able to provide made a lasting impression on me. Enough so that they are a science teacher I admire, for having letting me know early on that finding science class uninteresting and boring is in my case expected.

Science teachers do not make born to be scientists, their parents do, then they only hope wherever they send them to school works out and they don't maybe get rejected as unteachable and have to be home schooled like Thomas Edison's mom got stuck with but thankfully managed on her own. Galileo would have to thank monastery monks who would have had the (hard to find around) books he needed in their library and helped him figure them out, and later considering formal science teachers he had to be pompous jerks who are more concerned with keeping up appearances. Not getting along in an academic system others seem to be doing well in, is also relatively common among the most successful born to be scientists/engineers/inventors of them all. Science is not served by stereotypes that make it appear that the opposite must be true.

Gary, who spent longer in rehab: your science teacher or your English teacher?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,11:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,23:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 16 2014,22:33)
Gary, something I've noticed is that people like you, who latch onto and push such things as theocratic-IDiotic-pseudo-scientific agendas, apparently lack the ability to feel embarrassment.

What would most embarrass me is having gone along with the crowd that is now embarrassingly behind in modern science even the (born to be a mad-scientist) kids are now into these days:

http://ncse.com/blog.......0052011

Quote

Gary Gaulin > Cueball • 9 hours ago

Related information:
http://ncse.com/blog.......



Quote

Cueball > Gary Gaulin • an hour ago

That is neither related, nor is it information. I think you need a thesaurus.


HAHAHAHAHA

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,11:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 16 2014,23:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 16 2014,22:33)
Gary, something I've noticed is that people like you, who latch onto and push such things as theocratic-IDiotic-pseudo-scientific agendas, apparently lack the ability to feel embarrassment.

What would most embarrass me is having gone along with the crowd that is now embarrassingly behind in modern science even the (born to be a mad-scientist) kids are now into these days:

http://ncse.com/blog.......0052011

How exactly do you think you're benefiting, by giving us a link to another site where a bunch of science-oriented people try to explain to you that you're deranged and confused?

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,12:42   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 17 2014,12:22)
Gary, who spent longer in rehab: your science teacher or your English teacher?

you're assuming they didn't die of liver failure or heroin overdose.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,12:56   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 17 2014,13:42)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 17 2014,12:22)
Gary, who spent longer in rehab: your science teacher or your English teacher?

you're assuming they didn't die of liver failure or heroin overdose.

You're assuming he  actually had at least one science teacher and at least one English teacher.
As Wikipedia might say, 'Citation needed'.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2014,13:23   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 17 2014,13:56)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 17 2014,13:42)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 17 2014,12:22)
Gary, who spent longer in rehab: your science teacher or your English teacher?

you're assuming they didn't die of liver failure or heroin overdose.

You're assuming he  actually had at least one science teacher and at least one English teacher.
As Wikipedia might say, 'Citation needed'.

Guy: You're doing some kind of intellectual stuff.
Harris: Intellectual stuff? Maybe it's intellectual to you because you were educated with a banana and an inner tube.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2014,23:03   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 17 2014,11:20)
Quote
the greatest impact factor possible is from being at Planet Source Code

Until he specifies otherwise (and ignoring his apparent ignorance of the technical definition of "impact factor"), that statement would seem to imply that he rates PSC's importance as 100.

If we calculate the Impact Factor for PSC based on citations of Gary's work alone, it would have an Impact Factor of 0.00

Once again, Gary provides giggles.

I agree that it would be wonderful to publish a great looking science paper for a high impact science journal like PNAS or Nature. But like I keep saying: what I write is K-12 level how-to that has the highest impact factor when published by the NSTA, like the self-assembly demonstration was. The core model of the theory is from David Heiserman and follows Arnold Trehub's most basic illustration of the systematics for the human brain. It's Cognitive Science 101 stuff, that I long ago learned and found useful and explained to others so they know about it too.

All the information adding up to explaining intelligent (reciprocal) cause/causation events made it necessary for me to call it what it is, and that is not open for discussion that's simply the way science works in regards to a proposed theory for "intelligent cause" that needed development. It's scientifically unethical for me to make exceptions, not an open for discussion issue that needs someone's approval.

If though you are saying that I need a science journal based media event just to make a lot of academically noisy hoopla of my own then that sounds like fun, should be possible. My thought is still to make a "best of" for systems biology, from the online book. Already have the most highest impact factor sentence imaginable, to start it off with. There would be no addressing of political issues or "evolutionary theory" just wall to wall summary of the "Theory of Intelligent Design" for scientists who somehow did not already learn about this.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2014,23:47   

Quote
I agree that it would be wonderful to publish a great looking science paper for a high impact science journal like PNAS or Nature. But like I keep saying: what I write is K-12 level how-to that has the highest impact factor when published by the NSTA, like the self-assembly demonstration was.
What you write is unreadable, so it isn't K-12 appropriate.  It's also rubbish, which again makes it inappropriate.  Also, K-12 stuff is boiled down from the most significant conclusions, not the the least significant stuff that has never been published, so you are 0 for 3 with respect to K-12 education.

 
Quote
The core model of the theory is from David Heiserman and follows Arnold Trehub's most basic illustration of the systematics for the human brain. It's Cognitive Science 101 stuff, that I long ago learned and found useful and explained to others so they know about it too.
 What you have is not a theory, and it is a perversion of the scientific method, as it lacks supporting evidence, is not potentially falsifiable, lacks operational definitions, has not documented its key assumptions (like cellular intelligence), and gets lots of basic facts wrong about biology, so again it's clearly not appropriate for educational purposes.

Quote
All the information adding up to explaining intelligent (reciprocal) cause/causation events made it necessary for me to call it what it is, and that is not open for discussion that's simply the way science works in regards to a proposed theory for "intelligent cause" that needed development. It's scientifically unethical for me to make exceptions, not an open for discussion issue that needs someone's approval.
There is nothing, not one single thing, that is scientifically ethical about the way you are conducting yourself and presenting your ideas.  You are playing with words to smuggle in your conclusions, you aren't addressing criticisms, and you are claiming the authority of people who would be horrified at what you are doing with their ideas.  You are also appropriating a name ("intelligent design") without documenting the requisite intelligence and despite the fact that you are calling on emergence and self-similarity, which are contradictory to each other and are also antithetical to design.

 
Quote
If though you are saying that I need a science journal based media event just to make a lot of academically noisy hoopla of my own then that sounds like fun, should be possible.
 Would you care to try that sentence again, but in comprehensible English this time?

 
Quote
My thought is still to make a "best of" for systems biology, from the online book. Already have the most highest impact factor sentence imaginable, to start it off with. There would be no addressing of political issues or "evolutionary theory" just wall to wall summary of the "Theory of Intelligent Design" for scientists who somehow did not already learn about this.

"Most highest impact factor sentence imaginable"?????  Really?  Writing like that is not going to convince anyone that you have anything worthwhile to say.  No one will learn about your ideas, and you are simply wasting your time.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2014,00:29   

And I have to add that in the case of the self-assembly demonstration the highest impact factor for that was a NSTA journal. In the case of the computer model it's how-to software for programmers with obligatory theory of operation to explain how it works and can be used for. It would have been devastating for something that the how-to community needs to find awesome too (or I failed) to have been rejected by Planet Source Code.

There is seriously no way to make up for the model not making it with my peers, at PSC, where I already had a computer model to demonstrate rudimentary intelligence published there that needed updating anyway. It was a small step, with giant concequences, even though to someone conditioned to see science journals as having the ultimate impact on science. Another way to look at it is I had to go beyond the impact factor of a major science journal and be useful as one of the very first models a scientist (still in K-12) will ever on their own experiment with. It's then a matter of a few generations time for it to become firmly established in science. If it was a ho-hum model none found interesting the best it could ever become is lost in the clutter of several thousand science journals.

I understand how to someone conditioned to see science journals as a pillar of science the not caring about impact factors and other academia related things can seem like running away from an obligation of some sort but for me there are no obligations, in fact I already did way more than I should have had to while the pillar of science just complained and complained and complained.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2014,00:38   

And oops - incomplete sentence fragment should read something like:

Quote
, even though to someone conditioned to see science journals as having the ultimate impact on science PSC can appear to be the wrong place for something like this to be published.


--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2014,07:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 19 2014,01:38)
And oops - incomplete sentence fragment should read something like:

 
Quote
, even though to someone conditioned to see science journals as having the ultimate impact on science PSC can appear to be the wrong place for something like this to be published.

You're missing the point.
The voluntary submission of computer source code to a site that accepts virtually any source code (written in any one of a limited number of languages) is not publication.
Nor is computer source code, in and of itself, science.

You have not published your "theory".
You have not published your software, which has no perceptible relation to your "theory".  [No modeling of 'molecular intelligence', no modeling of 'cellular intelligence', no modeling of emergence in any meaningful sense, etc.]
You are not "doing science".  

You could perhaps bolster what you take to be your case by finding a single reference to code "published" on PSC in any science journal or PubMed, Google Scholar, or other reference search.
PSC is as relevant to impact on science as the scent of tangerines is to the spawning cycles of Great Barrier Reef corals.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2014,08:36   

To put it even more simply, Gary:
Planet Source Code is the software source code equivalent of a vanity press.

If you want to convince us that your code has some merit, get published by Pragmatic Programmers, Apress, Que, Informit or one of the large publishing houses with a sub-specialty in software.

If you want to convince us that your code has some relationship to your "theory", explain why and how it gets by without 'molecular intelligence', 'cellular intelligence' or even a nod towards the '4 levels' your "theory" insists are the sine qua non of 'intelligence'.

But of course, any of these courses of action would require you mucking about in the real world, dealing with evidence and other such mundane topics rather than fantasizing about K-12 and misconceiving 'learning' and all your other all-too-familiar tropes.

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 397 398 399 400 401 [402] 403 404 405 406 407 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]